Intel Arc desktop GPUs may be slower than previously expected, a new performance prediction for the whole series suggests
"According to the site, the actual performance difference based on the price of both cards is somewhere around 21%. The actual performance (not based on pricing) is just 4% better, so almost within the margin of error of being identical to Radeon RX 6400."
Good old Snake oil Koduri. I will say that even if the A380 ends up being just 4% faster than a 6400, I'd still recommend the A380 over 6400 assuming the drivers are up to snuff purely because how shitty the 6400 is with it's lack of decoders, limited vram, limited pci-e lanes and etc. Especially as the A380 in cheaper than the 6400 and Nvidia has no GPUs below $250. But once Arc gets over the 6600 GPU range, that's when it becomes hard to recommend it over AMD not to mention Nvidia. But we will see. If they can price it below AMD's offerings, then maybe but the drivers will really matter at that point.
According to Intel, Arc GPUs must use Resizable BAR for optimal performance
Three GIGABYTE GeForce GTX 1630 graphics cards appear on EEC website
https://videocardz.com/newz/three-gigabyte-geforce-gtx-1630-graphics-cards-appear-on-eec-website
Last time I posted about the 1630, I said it wasn't a bad idea as the 1050 Ti needed to be refreshed with modern features. Now with Arc offering more features than 16 series for pretty cheap prices, it will probably be useless.
AMD Possibly Readying A Van Gogh Successor Based on Phoenix Point APU Design, Could Power Next-Gen Valve Steam Deck Handheld Console With Zen 4 & RDNA 3 Cores
Take it with a grain of salt cause MLID
PC Specs: CPU: 7800X3D || GPU: Strix 4090 || RAM: 32GB DDR5 6000 || Main SSD: WD 2TB SN850
